This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: CVS branches and versioning


Aha!  I missed the blindingly obvious.  This makes
much more sense now.  For some reason, I was thinking
2.15 had been released into the wild already.

Many thanks.

On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 15:55, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 02:52:58PM -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:
> > 2.15.90 is the precursor to 2.16
> > 
> > 2.14.90 is the precursor to 2.15
> 
> Exactly.  Al, when binutils 2.15 is released - it hasn't been! - then
> the version will be "GNU ar 2.15".  A bit after, it will be "GNU ar
> 2.15 20040404", and then "GNU ar 2.15.1"...
> 
> > 
> > -eric
> > 
> > On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 14:46, Al Stone wrote:
> > > I am very confused.  Let me embarass myself for a moment...
> > > 
> > > If I check out a copy of binutils from CVS with:
> > > 
> > >   $ export CVSROOT=:pserver:anoncvs@sources.redhat.com:/cvs/src
> > >   $ cvs login
> > >   $ cvs -z9 co binutils
> > > 
> > > I get binutils 2.15.90 (well, not entirely -- the make fails
> > > on ia64 Linux, but that's another problem); bfd/configure 
> > > contains 2.15.90 for the VERSION value and all the executables
> > > built report it as they should, e.g.:
> > > 
> > >    $ ar --version
> > >    GNU ar 2.15.90 20040305
> > >    ...
> > > 
> > > So far, so good.  This makes some sense -- mainline for
> > > the tree should be the upcoming version.
> > > 
> > > Here's the problem: if I check out with the 2.15 branch
> > > tag like so:
> > > 
> > >    $ cvs -z9 co -rbinutils-2_15-branch binutils
> > > 
> > > And then build this source version, I get 2.14.90, _not_
> > > 2.15 (bfd/configure does say 2.14.90).  For example:
> > > 
> > >    $ ar --version
> > >    GNU ar 2.14.90 20040218
> > >    ...
> > > 
> > > I just repeated this about 10 minutes ago, just to make
> > > sure I wasn't doing something silly.
> > > 
> > > Isn't this backwards?  Or am I just misunderstanding
> > > something horribly?  I'm hoping it's the latter...
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > -- 
> > Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>
> > 
> > 
-- 
Ciao,
al
----------------------------
Al Stone
Linux & Open Source Lab
Hewlett-Packard Company
E-mail: ahs3@fc.hp.com
----------------------------


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]